Medicine and Biology

The recurrent accusations of non-scientificity regularly brought against homeopathy almost make us forget its very deep convergence with the data of biology. I will mention here the most obvious and the most important.

Two first essential elements, related to the notion of the individual, and characteristics of the homeopathic process in the observation of the patient, completely marry the essential data of the biology.

On the one hand, the fact that each of us is unique and singular. This expresses, of course, genetics. Each of us has a unique genetic code, unlike any other. The resulting immune identity generates, as we know, the problems of transplant rejection. Thus, in keeping with our biological character of being unique, homeopathy highlights the need to individualize treatments and to take into account what is most singular and unique in everyone.

The other dimension resulting from the individual character of each is the possible non-divisibility of the organism. Everything is connected to it. The disciplinary division is certainly possible and useful. For all that, the fundamental biological fact is that of our global unity, not divisible into "parts". This is how biology and physiology testify that everything in us is integrated. That since the first cell resulting from the fertilization of parental gametes, each new cell, each new tissue, each new organ is "built" to be put at the service of "everything". To be who we are. To ensure its survival and / or facilitate its adaptation to its environment and optimize its realization. It is conceivable, then, the relevance of taking into account the totality of the manifestations of a patient as "all", in homeopathy. And, above all, his extreme fidelity to biology.

In medicine, it has been customary to base the practice on imaging and laboratory data, so-called objective data, which are, above all, data "cut off" from the concrete life of the patient. So much so that no one is surprised to take care of such an absence of concrete consideration of each person's experience. Now, biology is "science of life". Science, therefore, of a living individual. And it appears, thus, particularly bio-logical that, homeopathy bases all its practice on the patient's experience, his sensations, the modifications of his symptomatology according to his activities, his climatic and relational environment. In short, it is based on the disease as it fits in the "real life" and resonates on it.

Biology and physiology show us that everything in the healthy and sick organism is based on retroactive control loops, "feed back". That everything depends on an incredible and very complex entanglement of systems of self-control and self-regulation. Is not it, then, particularly bio-logical to work to solicit and optimize the self-healing and self-regulating abilities of the body as does homeopathy ?

The biological equilibrium and its homeostatic maintenance capabilities testify to the importance of two factors. On the one hand, the importance of the relationship. The relationship between two data is more important, in fact, than the absolute values ​​of both (estrogen / progesterone balance or HDL / LDL ratio, for example). Importance, too, of the relationship, of the relationship, in fact many relationships, to the environment. Many pathologies are influenced by food intake, climatic variations and, of course, relationships to each other, socially and emotionally. What is, in the strict sense, an ecological dimension.

Here too, it is clear that homeopathy is in great convergence with biology, unlike the allopathic approach, which is almost irrelevant.

Remain, right (sic), to elucidate the question of the extreme dilutions that homeopathy uses in therapeutics. What is established is that homeopathy can not act by molecular action. What is certain, too, is that its action passes, one way or another, by an energy dimension. Remember that matter is a condensed energy. What the history of the universe and its "creation" reminds us with the initial energetic explosion leading, over billions of years, to the appearance of galaxies, planets (inanimate matter) then, little to little, of life (animate matter).

Recall, too, that there is no difference between mass and energy (the famous E = MC2). Matter is a concentration of energy. The idea of ​​a matter separated from energy has no validity. Even if all biomedicine remains based on a material and molecular approach, why, then, could we not act on living matter through, through, an energy signal?

We all know that a certain number of animals use energy information in an essential way. This is the case of migratory birds and certain fish, salmon, for example, which can only ensure their migrations by means of land-based electromagnetic field markings.

But, more importantly, it seems certain that the global organismic operation "emits" an electromagnetic field. It seems logical to consider that it is specific to the issuing body, that it constitutes, in a way, a signature. Is it so surprising to think that, here again, retro-control loops, energetic-biological, exist and operate? Why not imagine that, since the overall functioning of the body emits a specific electromagnetic field, giving a drug to the singular electromagnetic signature can have an effect on the biological organism? This remains, of course, hypothetical and without evidence on its concrete terms. But this seems, from the point of view of general reflection, plausible and a fruitful line of thought.

By homeopathic practice, biology, beyond chemical

and molecular data, seems to give way, thus, to an energetic dimension that would be intertwined. This seems profoundly innovative although still enigmatic.

But, in fact, the most astonishing, the most incredible, would not it be that the physical dimension, essential and everywhere present in our universe, is absent from the field of biology?